UNIONDALE, N.Y. (CBS 2)  He was arrested for protecting his property and family.

But its how the Long Island man did it that police say crossed the line.

He got an AK-47 assault rifle, pulled the trigger and he ended up in jail, reports CBS 2s Pablo Guzman.

George Grier said he had to use his rifle on Sunday night to stop what he thought was going to be an invasion of his Uniondale home by a gang he thought might have been the vicious MS-13. He said the whole deal happened as he was about to drive his cousin home.

I went around and went into the house, ran upstairs and told my wife to call the police. I get the gun and I go outside and I come into the doorway and now, by this time, they are in the driveway, back here near the house. I tell them, you know, Can you please leave? Grier said.

Grier said the five men dared him to use the gun; and that their shouts brought another larger group of gang members in front of his house.

He starts threatening my family, my life. Oh youre dead. Im gonna kill your family and your babies. Youre dead. So when he says that, 20 others guys come rushing around the corner. And so I fired four warning shots into the grass, Grier said.

The gang-bangers played this guy. Too bad they didn’t enter his house. Stopping the threat inside is generally more justifiable than warning shots outdoors according to tactical instructors at places like Blackwater Training Center and Gunsite Academy.

4
posted on 09/08/2010 6:54:56 AM PDT
by 12Gauge687
(Extremism in the defense of liberty is no vice)

How terrible for this guy—for protecting himself and his family. What a bunch of criminal thugs running that cesspit.

It is the tradition that a Kentuckian never runs. He does not have to...he is not obligated to retreat, nor to consider whether he can safely retreat, but is entitled to stand his ground, and meet any (life-threatening) attack made upon him with a deadly weapon... Kentucky Court of Appeals. Gibson v. Commonwealth, 34 SW 936 (Ky. 1931

Yes, the Governor can pardon any state offense. I have always thought that the governor of Texas should mobilize the Texas Rangers and send them down to the border (with Governor Pardoned immunity) to clean up the border. Yes, the Governor can pardon and grant immunity.

CBS does it once again. The CORRECT headline was - "Long Island Man Arrested For Defending Home With AK-47". But that's not why he was arrested. The article plainly states this.

He was arrested for firing warning shots into his lawn. Initially he's been charged with felony reckless endangerment.

From the article, he wasn't "attacked". A bunch of guys showed up in his driveway, but the article mentions nothing about an "attack".

I sort of hate to say this, but the dumb ass shouldn't have fired warning shots. He shouldn't have brandished the weapon either. He lost an amazing tactical advantage by going OUTSIDE and brandishing it, and he crossed the law when he fired warning shots. Most populated areas have ordinances prohibiting the discharge of firearms, much less firing in the DIRECTION of an individual when there's no clear deadly threat.

As much as it seems "illogical", he should have stayed in the house, WITH the AK and a bunch of spare mags and waited for LEO to arrive. If somebody started coming in, then the rules change. But he made a mistake and got arrested for it.

As someone with a concealed carry license, the laws governing the use of deadly force have little to do with either common sense or justice. What is worse is that they are different from place to place.

In some jurisdictions one has an “obligation to retreat” from a fight. In other places the castle doctrine allows one to stand their ground. However, generally the firing of a “warning shot” or shooting someone to “wing” them or wound and not kill, is a confession of violating the law. While there may be moral and ethical reasons to do so, most of the time there are no legal reasons.

If deadly force is required then you must shoot to kill. If you shoot to wound or fire a warning shot, that just proves that deadly force was not required. So even if a gang is shouting at you that they are going to kill you and your babies, the question is are you afraid for your life and have not reasonable choice, but to use deadly force to protect your life or the life/safety of another?

The homeowner would have had a better chance of staying out of jail if he had yelled at the top of his lungs that he was afraid for his life (a dozen times), taken several short steps back to prove he had “retreated” from the confrontation, then shot a dozen or so of the gang members.

The LAW has little to do with either common sense or justice, it is about rules and technicalities. If you own a firearm, you better learn the rules and technicalities or be prepared to go to jail, when you violate the LAW.

Sad, but that is the way things are in our lawyer dominated country. The home owner also brandished his weapon, when the "gang members" had no visible weapons, which in most situations nullifies a claim of self dense and makes the homeowner the person who escalated the confrontation to the deadly force level. The homeowner did many common sense things, but unfortunately violated so many laws that the he will spend lots of time in jail, unless a jury nullifies the LAW. Judges really hate that.

16
posted on 09/08/2010 7:26:09 AM PDT
by Robert357
(D.Rather "Hoist with his own petard!" www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-news/1223916/posts)

Unfortunately when approached by a large number of individuals, such as was the situation in this case, awaiting for entry into the home to fire would have been far too late for this gentleman and his family.

The last time I looked at an AK47 at a gun show, the price was $15K, and that was probably a decade ago. A few years later I bought the semi auto version with a couple of spare 30 round mags for something like $200.

I’d take long odds that he didn’t have an AK, but that’s just me.

With 30 gang members threatening to kill me and mine, I don’t think I’d waste time on warning shots: I’ve only one round per person without reloading. The threat has been made and they have the means to carry it out, so what other option do I have to protect our lives?

I come from LI. You seem to know a lot about the law there, are you involved in that regard?

I can tell you in the area where I lived on LI, the police can show up in a matter of a couple of minutes. They are very fast there. So if you have the time to go outside, and fire warning shots, the POV of the jury might be that you didn’t conduct yourself properly.

Years ago a friend and I were on the porch and heard a woman scream. (On LI) We called the cops, and I swear they were there in 60 seconds. So even conservative Long Islanders may be a little more intolerant of situations like this.

Where I live now you can wait hours for police to arrive. So juries are much more likely to side with the homeowner.

31
posted on 09/08/2010 8:08:52 AM PDT
by I still care
(I believe in the universality of freedom -George Bush, asked if he regrets going to war.)

I come from LI. You seem to know a lot about the law there, are you involved in that regard?

I can tell you in the area where I lived on LI, the police can show up in a matter of a couple of minutes. They are very fast there. So if you have the time to go outside, and fire warning shots, the POV of the jury might be that you didnt conduct yourself properly.

Not involved with law enforcement, but have been involved with shooting sports since I was in Jr High nearly 50 years ago. I am on the west or Left coast. At the range and gun collectors association I belong to we have some strong educational programs on the rights and responsibilities of firearm ownership. The ignorance of the media and Hollywood as to firearms has been a hot topic for many years. It is truly interesting to read local reports saying that police should shoot to wound rather than kill with firearms in their columns and then find out that if a policeman did what the reporter suggested that the policeman would be fired for not following department procedures and that the city/county would likely be subject to a huge civil lawsuit. The use of "deadly force" is a topic that every American should learn about and that every firearm owner should know by heart for the jurisdictions where they live and work.

37
posted on 09/08/2010 12:43:03 PM PDT
by Robert357
(D.Rather "Hoist with his own petard!" www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-news/1223916/posts)

By the way, in the article it says the owner knew the police would know because of “shot spotter” technology employed by the police in the area, and they detected two shots in nearby Roosevelt (which IS a cesspool) that night.

Does anyone know about this?

39
posted on 09/08/2010 1:11:29 PM PDT
by I still care
(I believe in the universality of freedom -George Bush, asked if he regrets going to war.)

Never ever fire “warning” shots. Shoot to kill or do not shoot at all. By telling the police that you fired a “warning” shot, you are confessing that you did not feel you or another were in mortal peril; getting there, perhaps, but not yet there. In this man’s case, the “warning” shots should have been fired into the middle of someone’s chest. That would serve to “warn” the others to be someplace else.

(And tactically speaking, he probably should have gone back inside his house. I don’t know if NY has a Castle Doctrine law, but he would have the advantage inside his own home even if he wasn’t legally obligated to retreat. He knows the layout while the goblins don’t. He would also have had incontrovertible proof that his life was in danger.)

Disclaimer:
Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual
posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its
management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the
exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.